I'm not sure how your argument disproves his point, do you understand relativity?
1) TR multiplatform: Xbox value = X, PS value = Y
2) TR moneyhatted: Xbox Value = X, PS value = (Y - value of TR)
So yeah with TR moneyhatted, Xbox looks like it has added value relatively to PS while in the reality it's a value that was subtracted from PS.
3) Not monethatted game (SO,QB): Xbox Value = (X + value of that game), PS value = Y.
Non moneyhatted games add real value to Xbox.
P.S. feel free to change "PS" with any platform of your choice.
We now have formulas trying to change the reality that a timed exclusive for a pretty big game release is kind of a pretty big deal. Come on.
Anything that is a subtracted value from PS is a value added to the Xbox One, and the same also works in reverse, especially so when we're talking about a big release such as this one. We can fairly argue about just how much of an added value it is, and that's a fair discussion, but to act like there's no value at all is just not credible. Am I really talking to the same group that was so excited over exclusive Destiny/Watch Dogs DLC?
Of course a true exclusive = an even bigger value than a timed exclusive, but it's not impossible that a timed exclusive can have more or less the same effect depending on the duration of that timed exclusive deal, when it eventually makes its way to other platforms, just how good the game ends up being, and how that translates at retail. A lot of factors, yes, but the efforts to downplay this thing aren't working. It's clearly a big deal, which is why there is so much forum and internet attention around the subject. If Microsoft had made the same exact announcement for a far less important game, it would have been greeted with a collective yawn.
When a situation with a game has so many people upset, then it's clearly a big deal, and it's definitely a big deal for the xbox one for there to be a timed exclusive on this game.
The answer is no. It's not an argument to say "if you don't admit to my point then I will think you're being dishonest." I play games, not systems. I do not want to deprive any game which was always supposed to be multiplatform from any other system. I know it happens, but if it has to happen, it should immediately be clear the details of the plan (in this case it factually wasn't, since they had to clarify multiple times over the course of the week until we got their most forthright answer) so that gamers can make their choices about their future purchasing plans without any doubt. Anything else is just insulting to consumers. We're not pawns in their fucking console war. We're people who want to play games.
See, I know what you're trying to say and it sounds pretty nice, but I find that insanely hard to believe that you wouldn't find it to be a pretty big deal, and an enormous benefit to the PS4. Nobody wants to deprive others of games, but you have to admit that when it happens with the right game, it is a pretty damn big deal for whichever platform it benefits, and that can't be understated. We won't agree here, and that's fine.
More to the point: it wasn't the type of exclusivity that was the biggest problem for me, it was the WAY in which the deal was announced. They clarified it a day or two later, but there shouldn't have to be a clarification. In the first few days we got 3 or 4 different stories about the precise details of this thing. A few in this topic are trying to utilize their clearest articulation of what happened as proof they were never trying to hide anything, but that's why you can't view things in a tiny prism. Obfuscation means you are trying to muddy the waters to make something seem other than the actual reality. Until they were forced by the backlash to clarify, they were intentionally dropping multiple tiered storylines about what this exclusivity meant. Those different stories have been posted a hundred times in this topic, so it's no use trying to post the one article as evidence they were always clear.
Even with the confusion, we are still dealing with a situation where Microsoft has snagged a pretty major release as a timed exclusive for an undetermined amount of time. It has been compared to the deal with Dead Rising and Ryse. Depending on exactly what that means, it's possible that it may not see release on PS4 till late 2016 at the soonest. Microsoft is also apparently co-publishing this thing and spending money on the game's development. Obviously the deal must be good for both sides or it wouldn't have happened, but communication matters aside, this is still a pretty big deal. It sounds like there's a pretty good chance the publisher on this game could actually end up being Microsoft Game Studios at least for the 360 and Xbox One releases.
Value adding to your console is getting something to come to your platform that otherwise never would. Subtracting value from a console is when you make a deal which has the sole purpose of depriving another of something of value.
As I noted to harSon, they could have secured any number of elements to make the Rise of the Tomb Raider on XBO the version to get content-wise. And they probably will have lots of that sort of stuff in the game. THAT part would be "adding value." It's never adding value when you're taking a game away from other platforms when you were always getting the game anyhow.
You're playing semantics here. Getting a big game as an exclusive or timed exclusive directly adds value to the console that got that exclusive. It doesn't really matter how it happened or whether it was always coming to that platform, all that matters is that it happened. Remove MS from the equation and let's just say that Square decides on their own to no longer put the game on the Xbox One and instead put it on the PS4 because it's selling better right now, would that not somehow be a direct added value to the PS4 lineup because such a big game is now exclusive or a timed exclusive? The end result there is no different. The history of this industry shows that the perception that your system is the only or first place to gain access to a particular game has always been an added value to a system. And, yes, this has also been true for games where that console was always going to get that game anyway. It was the case with the Tomb Raider franchise that first launched on multiple machines, and then the followups were only on playstation. This was true for the GTA games that launched first on the PS2 and then would later show up on PC and the original Xbox. Same is true for metal gear solid 1, 2 or 3. A combination of timed exclusives and true exclusive, but the timed in every case had the same end impact.
Perception can be everything, and the perception is that one console is getting a certain big release Holiday 2015, and the other? We have no idea when, but it may be for a period of up to 6 or more months. It's similar to when Peter Moore flashed that tattoo on his arm at E3 2006 and everybody thought for a moment Microsoft snagged GTA 4 exclusively. That would've been a big deal. Any deal or decision that gets made to bring a game or series of games to a single platform over another constitutes a deal that more than likely kept it from being on another platform, thus you can always say it was subtracted as a possible game in a certain other system's lineup. Never forget that after much EA support on consoles like the Sega Genesis, EA's lack of support for the Dreamcast effectively doomed the system. Tell me that decision wasn't of tremendous value to the PS2.
Nonetheless, we can discuss this matter for ages on whether it's right or wrong, but what I don't feel is debatable is the fact that deals like this historically add
some level of value to a system. But it's clear we won't agree here either. Also fine.
You see, this is why context is important. My comment about FFXIII was not actually about FFXIII alone. The reason why I 'blew my lid', so-to-speak, was because FFXIII was emblematic of the larger problem Sony was facing at the time: the end of all third party exclusives that were traditionally associated with the PS brand. THAT was what it was about. It was a time when Xbox 360 - my favorite console of last gen and the one in which I spent 90% of all my time and game purchases on - had secured a place in the industry at the very real expense of PlayStation. My prognostication about the Sony brand being over was hyperbole, but the reality is it was symptomatic of what was happening. PS3 as a console wiped out every penny of profit Sony made from PS2, PS1 and PSP, and the fleeing of developers showcased a company who, at the time, seemed very diseased.
Rise of the Tomb Raider is emblematic of nothing. It doesn't have the significance of Final Fantasy. It's not symptomatic of a larger trend, except that Microsoft is desperate and needs anything to try to stop the market realities. It's not
anything except a very confused play by Microsoft and SquareEnix which in my view has already backfired spectacularly, since 2/3 of all discussion in Tomb Raider communities across the web is how shitty this is.
Word-of-mouth is what sells games.
Fair enough and I was agreeing with you up until the bolded. You don't think there's something significant about this happening to Tomb Raider of all things that was so synonymous with the playstation brand over the years, especially right as the series has apparently returned to former glory? Up until the release of FF13, and obviously prior to the release of the Tomb Raider reboot and the success it has enjoyed, I would've agreed that it isn't as significant as Final Fantasy, but now I feel it's a serious debate that can be had. And on the subject of it not being symptomatic of a larger trend, I don't know about that either. Now clearly this is highly subjective, but in my honest opinion it continues a trend of the Xbox One seemingly getting all the big games, and having the more exciting looking big exclusives overall, meanwhile Sony still seems far too reliant on smaller titles. I expect it will be a great platform in the end, but the big exclusives outside of Uncharted and perhaps Bloodborne really don't look all that exciting. The Order is something I was interested in, and it's not impossible that I could change my mind on it in the end, but on the whole I don't think the games comparison is very flattering on the PS4 side of things. Maybe sometimes I think because sales aren't really reflective of how much of an edge I think the Xbox One has in this department, it's a lot more difficult a thing to see. PS4 is selling gangbusters and outselling Xbox One, so perhaps people really can't process the idea of the system that's on the losing end of the sales war right now having a serious edge in any perceivable department, but I think there's a very clear advantage for the Xbox One in the types of exclusive games coming. The what's already available gap was, of course, l think closed tremendously or perhaps altogether after the release of Last of Us remastered on PS4, because I really do believe the game is just that damn good, but, it's still pretty difficult to look at what's coming and not be a ton more excited about what's coming up for Xbox One. And while this Tomb Raider deal certainly doesn't make the game a full Xbox One exclusive, it still sorta contributes to the impression of a piling on effect that just seems to bolster what's already on the way for the system.
Halo 5, Quantum Break and this Tomb Raider timed exclusive all in the same year next year is pretty big. Then toss in releases like Sunset Overdrive (seeing the new trailer on the Xbox One dashboard is really something else), Scalebound (whenever that releases), the Master Chief Collection, Forza Horizon 2 and you have what makes for a pretty badass looking lineup of games. But, again, just my personal view.
